Fire Trucked Siezed Under 172
They sieze fire trucks and not police cruisers?
Emergency vehicles are exempt under the regulations.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0455_e.htm
(2) Despite sections 2 and 3, "race", "contest" and "stunt" do not include any activity required for the lawful operation of motor vehicles described in subsections 62 (15.1) or 128 (13) of the Act, or the lawful operation of an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1) of the Act. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 4 (2).
Although the driver wasnt in route to a call he can only be convicted under s. 128, which does not provide for a vehicle impoundment.
The cops are out of control. Totally clueless...and corrupt.
How many cops are getting kickbacks from the towing and storage companies?
The cop controls which towing company will tow vehicles at accidents and possibly impoundments. . If you show up with a tow truck and are capable of towing the vehicle but were not called by the cop, the cop can charge you and you're facing a fine and six months in jail for each subsequent offence.
Tow truck services
171. (1) No person shall make or convey an offer of services of a tow truck while that person is within 200 metres of,
(a) the scene of an accident or apparent accident; or
(b) a vehicle involved in an accident,
on the Kings Highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (1).
Idem
(2) No person shall park or stop a tow truck on the Kings Highway within 200 metres of,
(a) the scene of an accident or apparent accident; or
(b) a vehicle involved in an accident,
if there is a sufficient number of tow trucks already at the scene to deal with all vehicles that apparently require the services of a tow truck. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (2).
Idem
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who is at the scene of the accident at the request of a police officer, an officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, a person engaged in highway maintenance or a person involved in the accident. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (3).
Offence
(4) Every person who contravenes any provision in this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000; and
(b) for each subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (4).
- hwybear
- High Authority
- Posts: 2934
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
- Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
lawmen wrote:Emergency vehicles are exempt under the regulations.
Wish that were true! We have 2 of our officers charged with this offence while in cruisers, only reason the vehicle was not towed....well actually they were towed....on a flatbed!
The cars weren't impounded for 7 days though, right?
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:43 pm
- Location: Trana
hwybear wrote:lawmen wrote:Emergency vehicles are exempt under the regulations.
Wish that were true! We have 2 of our officers charged with this offence while in cruisers, only reason the vehicle was not towed....well actually they were towed....on a flatbed!
that's inaccurate
1 officer was charged after his cruiser crashed into 2 horses, killing the horses, totalling the cruiser and injuring the officer.....so yeah, the car wasn't siezed....the officer was charged after an investigation and did not have his license suspended
the other officer was charged for simply driving like a maniac while not on a call.....his car was fine (not damaged) and was not siezed, and he never recieved a license suspension either
my understanding in both scenarios is that citizen/witness complaints were the inspiration for the charges......these officers were not charged by other willing officers trying to get some gold star for busting their brothers roadside
so the officers' scenarios are nothing like the FireTruck deal.....far from it...they weren't pulled over by another officer roadside and left walking, which is apparently what happened to the FireFighter
while I think many opposed to 172 would love to see on-duty cops busting other on-duty cops for driving infractions while not on a call....we're not going to see that......nope, if a copper has issues with his/her driving, I'm sure it would be addressed internally as it should
as it should have been dealt internally with this FireFighter.....pretty simple IMO.....copper clocks him, rings up the Fire Chief, allows the return of the vehicle to the Fire Dept and let's the driver deal with his penalty
I cannot see this tactic going over well between the Fire Dept and the OPP in that region...doesn't seem like a great relationship builder.....assuming the Fire Dept has a somewhat limited # of emergency vehicles, so losing one for a week could impair their ability to do their job properly, and ironically their job is to "save lives"
anyhoo....another retarded blow to this ill-thought farce
- hwybear
- High Authority
- Posts: 2934
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
- Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
PetitionGuy wrote: my understanding in both scenarios is that citizen/witness complaints were the inspiration for the charges.
Both to my understanding were internal investigations.
I saw the newspapers, but also heard through the grapevine about 50th person hand (more than 2nd hand) what happened......so what if anything is truthful on all that? Only the officers involved directly know what happened or did not. I can not comment on anything more as this is done by our senior command staff.
Cops investigating cops is total Hogwash, though.
There should be a citizen panel that investigates cops complaints for any reason with appeals to the court.
- Reflections
- High Authority
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
- Location: somewhere in traffic
as it should have been dealt internally with this FireFighter.....pretty simple IMO.....copper clocks him, rings up the Fire Chief, allows the return of the vehicle to the Fire Dept and let's the driver deal with his penalty
In this instance I agree. However, what is the charge???????????
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:43 pm
- Location: Trana
Reflections wrote:as it should have been dealt internally with this FireFighter.....pretty simple IMO.....copper clocks him, rings up the Fire Chief, allows the return of the vehicle to the Fire Dept and let's the driver deal with his penalty
In this instance I agree. However, what is the charge???????????
take your pick
Careless Driving plus a nice big speeding ticket would make a nice pair IMO......and Careless upon conviction carries the same 6-point penalty so the Insurance Co's take it just as serious as a 172 conviction
no upfront BS and the driver is still in serious *EDIT*
-
- Similar Topics
-
-
New post Parked in a designated fire route, but not a real fire route
by volvoguy in Parking TicketsLast post by jimm Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:07 am
-
-
-
New post Is this a fire route?
by setdin2 in General TalkLast post by iFly55 Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:18 pm
-
-
-
New post Parking in fire route
by Shorestones in Parking TicketsLast post by Shorestones Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:34 pm
-
-
-
New post Parking within 3m of fire hydrant, when it's more than 3m
by buddy64 in General TalkLast post by bend Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:48 pm
-
-
-
New post Parking in a Fire Route
by tom1331 in Parking TicketsLast post by iFly55 Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:00 pm
-
-
-
New post parking in fire route
by thesufiway in Parking TicketsLast post by Radar Identified Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:14 pm
-
-
-
New post Parking near a fire hydrant
by Charlie in Parking TicketsLast post by PaulQ Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:14 pm
-
-
-
New post Parking in fire route + 114(18)
by kreso in General TalkLast post by ticketcombat Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:40 pm
-
-
-
New post Parking in Fire Route (at church!)
by Blackdragon12 in Parking TicketsLast post by tremor Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:45 pm
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests